Author
Topic: 17th Oct Governors Meeting (Read 1459 times)

17th Oct is when the governors meet to vote on the sale of the Hibbert Lane site Ms Cassidy WILL attend this meeting because surprise surprise she is one of the governors. The Governors intend to vote even when they all know that its is in breech of SMBC planning law and that it will have to go to appeal costing me and you money, it's a double whammy really, first they take our land and then to add insult to injury they make the community pay for the privilege of paying to fight it in court.What's ironic is that I would have expected a teaching body to have a duty to listen and respect authority, isn't this what CAMSFC should be teaching our young people to do? CAMSFC have a duty of care to their students and the community but are failing both by not informing them of their fantastic plans to build a school for the future, which involves moving all the science laboratories, sports facilities and the like all for 12million Instead they ignore all requests from the towns governing body to meet and discuss an alternative, they fail to enter into any form of negotiations with other governing bodies and they fail to respond to the concerns of the community . The government and the YPLA should be watching CAMSFC very carefully as they feel comfortable at ignoring any form of authority which is not presenting a picture of a good role model for our children, which I find more than a little concerning for our young peoples education Well the people of Marple will be watching very closely and will hold all those responsible individually accountable if this proposal goes ahead.

In MIA's own words: 'we have empathy for the situation in which the College finds itself and understand that the Governors are constitutionally bound to seek ‘best value’ when offloading the Hibbert Lane campus'.

In MIA's own words: 'we have empathy for the situation in which the College finds itself and understand that the Governors are constitutionally bound to seek ‘best value’ when offloading the Hibbert Lane campus'.

'Best value' was MIA's phrase, not mine, but I take it to be a reference to the fact that FE and sixth-form college corporations are legally obliged, if they dispose of any assets, to do so for the best possible price. This obligation is placed on them for various fairly obvious reasons. For example, it prevents any dodgy dealings - selling a piece of land at a knock-down price to one of their mates, for example.

The obligation derives from one of the standard Articles of Government, which states that the governors are responsible for 'safeguarding the assets' of the organisation. If they disposed of any assets for less than their maximum value, they would be in breach of this obligation.

'Best value' was MIA's phrase, not mine, but I take it to be a reference to the fact that FE and sixth-form college corporations are legally obliged, if they dispose of any assets, to do so for the best possible price. This obligation is placed on them for various fairly obvious reasons. For example, it prevents any dodgy dealings - selling a piece of land at a knock-down price to one of their mates, for example.

The obligation derives from one of the standard Articles of Government, which states that the governors are responsible for 'safeguarding the assets' of the organisation. If they disposed of any assets for less than their maximum value, they would be in breach of this obligation.

I've lost count of how many times you've posted this and it's been ignored Dave

'Best value' was MIA's phrase, not mine, but I take it to be a reference to the fact that FE and sixth-form college corporations are legally obliged, if they dispose of any assets, to do so for the best possible price. This obligation is placed on them for various fairly obvious reasons. For example, it prevents any dodgy dealings - selling a piece of land at a knock-down price to one of their mates, for example.

The obligation derives from one of the standard Articles of Government, which states that the governors are responsible for 'safeguarding the assets' of the organisation. If they disposed of any assets for less than their maximum value, they would be in breach of this obligation.

So what do they do when they cannot sell the property for its maximum value due to planning regulations? Surely they have to consider 'best value' within the constraints imposed on the land?

Dave, the financial reading of the term 'assets' is the narrowest of readings. I am surprised and concerned that neither you nor the governors as a body seem willing to value the good reputation of the college as an 'asset', which it most certainly is. Without this, the newly refurbished buildings will be empty and the college will have to close.

'Best value' was MIA's phrase, not mine, but I take it to be a reference to the fact that FE and sixth-form college corporations are legally obliged, if they dispose of any assets, to do so for the best possible price. This obligation is placed on them for various fairly obvious reasons. For example, it prevents any dodgy dealings - selling a piece of land at a knock-down price to one of their mates, for example.

The obligation derives from one of the standard Articles of Government, which states that the governors are responsible for 'safeguarding the assets' of the organisation. If they disposed of any assets for less than their maximum value, they would be in breach of this obligation.

So what do they do when they cannot sell the property for its maximum value due to planning regulations? Surely they have to consider 'best value' within the constraints imposed on the land?

I'm pulling some figures out of thin air to illustrate my point, but the general principle holds. I would take a guess that the flat market rate for the land for retail development is say £20mil, however because of restrictions in place that limit the size of any development (according to those who know on here, the open space has to stay for at least the next 10 yrs?) that gets knocked down to say £16mil. Then you've got the fact that the planning process will be long and complicated and thus expensive, that takes you down to say £12mil. Then if all else fails, you might get some mug who wants to try and build houses on it (in this climate!) and so you might get £6mil for it.

That's what the College is doing, trying to get the best value they can.

Dave, the financial reading of the term 'assets' is the narrowest of readings. I am surprised and concerned that neither you nor the governors as a body seem willing to value the good reputation of the college as an 'asset', which it most certainly is. Without this, the newly refurbished buildings will be empty and the college will have to close.

I'm sure they have taken it into account. The rules and regs that they have to adhere to talk about "best value" (or similar statements), not highest price. For example £11mil in a lump sum upfront might be considered a better deal than, say, £12mill spread over the next 5yrs. And similarly, the College might be able to justify taking a slightly lower price from a housing developer instead of the higher price from a supermarket by factoring in reputation, community engagement, etc, etc. But if the numbers being talked about on here are even remotely accurate, we're not talking a slightly lower price, we're talking 30%, 40%, 50% less. In which case the College Governors can't take the lower price.

I don't think it does the reputation of MIA any good to be constantly bashing the College. In fact the latest statement from MIA, as highlighted by Dave, basically says, we know you've got no choice, but we're gonna have a go at you anyway. I think if the College is going to be a focus of the No campaign, then we'd better served by analysing the figures, and showing that actually the College don't need to sell.

Dave, the financial reading of the term 'assets' is the narrowest of readings. I am surprised and concerned that neither you nor the governors as a body seem willing to value the good reputation of the college as an 'asset', which it most certainly is.

It is indeed a narrow reading, but that is what is intended in the Articles of Government. It means assets as they appear on the college's balance sheet, i.e. property that can be converted into cash. In other words, if you can't sell it it's not an asset!

the College might be able to justify taking a slightly lower price from a housing developer instead of the higher price from a supermarket by factoring in reputation, community engagement, etc, etc.

I think that might be possible, but it would have to be justified financially. I suppose if the governors felt that the best offer might, for some reason, have negative financial consequences - for example, a significant unplanned fall in student numbers - then they might be able to justify accepting a lower one. But there would have to be very convincing evidence for such a step to be justified - sabre rattling from MIA wouldn't do it, I'm afraid!

Dave, the financial reading of the term 'assets' is the narrowest of readings. I am surprised and concerned that neither you nor the governors as a body seem willing to value the good reputation of the college as an 'asset', which it most certainly is. Without this, the newly refurbished buildings will be empty and the college will have to close.

I very much doubt it - especially if the college is in a better condition and offers improved facilities than it does currently - I'm sure, in fact, it will be quite the opposite and their admission numbers will increase.